Are Nintendo foolish with hardware?

Same goes for MicroSony...

PS1 - The loading times were plainfully slow, not to mention the 2D graphics being clearly inferior to the Saturn.

PS2 - It lacked anti-aliasing, which the Dreamcast and even N64 already had, not to mention an inferior online service compared to the Dreamcast.

Xbox - The Pentium III architecture was very inefficient compared to the more advanced PowerPC architecture used by the GameCube.

Xbox 360 - The 'Red Ring of Death', the paid online service which its rivals offer for free, and the lack of an internet browser which even the Wii offered.

PS3 - The limited RSX GPU is a bottleneck that pretty much renders most of that Cell power pointless.

Jag85

They're not reallt foolish at it. They don't generally go out of their way in hardware either.

I'm gonna to get back to you guys in the morning, I thought my thread died when I went to work :P. Interesting comments. But I get the feeling a few replied to the topic title instead of the op.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Same goes for MicroSony...

PS1 - The loading times were plainfully slow, not to mention the 2D graphics being clearly inferior to the Saturn.

PS2 - It lacked anti-aliasing, which the Dreamcast and even N64 already had, not to mention an inferior online service compared to the Dreamcast.

Xbox - The Pentium III architecture was very inefficient compared to the more advanced PowerPC architecture used by the GameCube.

Xbox 360 - The 'Red Ring of Death', the paid online service which its rivals offer for free, and the lack of an internet browser which even the Wii offered.

PS3 - The limited RSX GPU is a bottleneck that pretty much renders most of that Cell power pointless.

Lordofinternet

The Xbox's Pentium III CPU architecture was a bottleneck, limiting the GPU's full potential. The Xbox was the bulkiest and most expensive console that gen, but failed to outperform the much cheaper GameCube. In fact, the GameCube even outperformed the Xbox when it came to practical polygon counts (case in point: Rogue Leader). Like the PS2, the Xbox failed to live up to Microsoft's hype (though not to the same extent).

The PS1's slow loading times was a serious flaw, not just "nit picking". And your argument about fighting games is pretty silly. Fighting games were the benchmark for 2D graphics back then, in the same way shooters are for 3D graphics today. When it came to 2D arcade ports, the Saturn version was always superior to the PS1 version, which instead relied on FMV cut-scenes to make up for its inferior 2D graphics capabilities.

And yes, I did mean the Dreamcast. The PS2's online service was inferior to the Dreamcast's SegaNet online service, which came out two years before it. And the PS2's lack of hardware anti-aliasing was a serious flaw, since the Dreamcast and even the N64 already had that years before it. All that talk about the PS2's "emotion engine" and yet it was hardly any better than the Dreamcast. It took years, until the end of last-gen, before the PS2 had anything that looked as good as Shenmue II.

As for internet browsers, it took years before the 360 eventually provided one, even though it's a paid service. It's not necessarily a hardware flaw (i.e. like the RROD), but it's certainly an OS flaw, especially since it's something even the relatively primitive Wii offered.

Well, yea.

The N64's expensive, low storage capacity cartridges and difficult programming lost them a lot of 3rd party support (altho the system was technically more capable than PSX and Saturn), the GC was easy to develop for and capable but didn't allow online gameplay or even connectivity (despite being technically capable of it due to the broadband adapter; No clue why was it even made), Wii was underpowered and forced motion control and the Wii U seems more like what the Wii should have already been...

NES and SNES also had their issues (like sprite flicker on NES and relatively slow CPU in SNES) but it didn't really matter because Nintendo was a big player back then and attracted the 3rd parties by itself. (also SNES allowed for special cartridge chips that allowed for games otherwise not possible on the system)

N64 the had the most expensive, crappiest looking games out of every system ever made. It was nothing more than snes with every game using a third person view. The colors were basic, everything looked like it was made out of legos. And the used game market was non existant, while ps1 exploded.

Gamecube came way too late. If you didn't get burned by being an early dreamcast adopter, you already had a ps2, or were a hipster and owned a xbox. No one was buying another $200 system that was over sized, looked like a jack in the box, and had no games at launch. Never did have a mario, and double dash was a failed abortion. Not only did no third party developers support the system, even nintendo abandoned the thing.

If the wii wasn't some sort of miracle success the company would have been liquidated. Even with its success Nintendo barely supported the damn thing. The second most successful system ever and 8 games were made for it. And instead of trying to fix that problem, they rush a bloated, unneeded successor, using dated hardware. All because they wanted to rush a gimmick. They didn't even think ahead and realized their hdd storage was barely big enough to hold the operating system.

joehult

Lots of dumb in this post...

Same goes for MicroSony...

PS1 - The loading times were plainfully slow, not to mention the 2D graphics being clearly inferior to the Saturn.

PS2 - It lacked anti-aliasing, which the Dreamcast and even N64 already had, not to mention an inferior online service compared to the Dreamcast.

Xbox - The Pentium III architecture was very inefficient compared to the more advanced PowerPC architecture used by the GameCube.

Xbox 360 - The 'Red Ring of Death', the paid online service which its rivals offer for free, and the lack of an internet browser which even the Wii offered.

PS3 - The limited RSX GPU is a bottleneck that pretty much renders most of that Cell power pointless.

Jag85

This is also true as well though. Ninty isn't the only one who has done stupid stuff to their hardware.

They are the company to pick on though just because of their recent choice. Present issues tend to resurface past issues fairly quickly.

i think that persons making those decisions have no brain. What is going on with Nintendo i don't know and don't care because MS/Sony always deliver but how can N64 and earlier were so amazing and suddenly Nintendo became a laughing stock since 06 is kinda :roll:

That depends. I feel that Nintendo's hardware is particularly well made in comparison to the competition, if you take horsepower out of the equation. I've never had to worry about their consoles/handhelds breaking down from normal use. When it comes down to specs, Nintendo tends to make hardware that THEY want to make games for. Right now, it's difficult to say whether the Wii U will be Wii all over again.

Even if 1.2ghz turns out to be true, while it is slow, isn't everything. In the PC world, slower, but more modern CPUs can outperform older models of higher clock speeds. We'll see in time.

One thing Nintendo IS foolish about is the Wii U operating system. Using half the system RAM for a bloated OS is ridiculous.

Even if 1.2ghz turns out to be true, while it is slow, isn't everything. In the PC world, slower, but more modern CPUs can outperform older models of higher clock speeds. We'll see in time.

YearoftheSnake5

It isn't everything. When we are comparing CPU with speeds close to each other in close generations, then we can say the architecture matters, but saying they might be competitive versus modern CPUs over 3Ghz with a tri-core 1,2Ghz would be saying they have the most efficient architecture ever made and are YEARS ahead of everyone, including Intel.
No matter how great is the performance per clock of the WiiU is, it is butchered that the underwhelming low speed.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

Well if developers want to do more but can't because of a limitation, isn't that a problem?

p4s2p0

bro ain't no good console players

top cs 1.6 players and top ql players in their own league

The only foolish console they ever did was the Wii........horribly weak hardware versus the competition, forgettable 3rd party games and support, gimmicky controllers in order to capture an untapped demorgraphic. I could go on and on and on....

Everything else were either phenominal (NES & SNES) or decent (N64 & GC).

And Nintendo has always made quality powerful consoles: SNES, N64 and GC. They just went down hill with the Wii and now WiiU.

my 2 cents

you really CAN'T BLAME nintendo for being conservative, if any one is to blame it is the supporters of the ps1 ps2 etc when nintendo actually had powerful systems in the past no body wanted them no body wanted anything to do with gamecube and we all know how much re4 had to be scalled back for ps2 , there is proof enough that nintendo is not foolish its the consumer who didnt wanna buy nintendo consoles when they were powerful and cheap! now we all pay the price as nintendo fans , and what not,

we pay the price because the consumer didnt want power ,

That depends. I feel that Nintendo's hardware is particularly well made in comparison to the competition, if you take horsepower out of the equation. I've never had to worry about their consoles/handhelds breaking down from normal use. When it comes down to specs, Nintendo tends to make hardware that THEY want to make games for. Right now, it's difficult to say whether the Wii U will be Wii all over again.

Even if 1.2ghz turns out to be true, while it is slow, isn't everything. In the PC world, slower, but more modern CPUs can outperform older models of higher clock speeds. We'll see in time.

One thing Nintendo IS foolish about is the Wii U operating system. Using half the system RAM for a bloated OS is ridiculous.

YearoftheSnake5

It's all a matter of developers becoming more familiar with the hardware and optimizing their games to better make use of the Wii U's hardware. As developers get more used to it, we'll be seeing a lot more better-looking games in future, as was the case with the PS360, which initially had games that look nowhere near as good as they do today.

But like you said, the real issue is the OS. The biggest mistake Nintendo have made with the Wii U is not the hardware, but that over-bloated OS unnecessarily draining the system RAM and, from what I hear, the CPU as well.

The only foolish console they ever did was the Wii........horribly weak hardware versus the competition, forgettable 3rd party games and support, gimmicky controllers in order to capture an untapped demorgraphic. I could go on and on and on....

Everything else were either phenominal (NES & SNES) or decent (N64 & GC).

And Nintendo has always made quality powerful consoles: SNES, N64 and GC. They just went down hill with the Wii and now WiiU.

my 2 cents

KingsofQueens

[QUOTE="YearoftheSnake5"]

That depends. I feel that Nintendo's hardware is particularly well made in comparison to the competition, if you take horsepower out of the equation. I've never had to worry about their consoles/handhelds breaking down from normal use. When it comes down to specs, Nintendo tends to make hardware that THEY want to make games for. Right now, it's difficult to say whether the Wii U will be Wii all over again.

Even if 1.2ghz turns out to be true, while it is slow, isn't everything. In the PC world, slower, but more modern CPUs can outperform older models of higher clock speeds. We'll see in time.

One thing Nintendo IS foolish about is the Wii U operating system. Using half the system RAM for a bloated OS is ridiculous.

Jag85

It's all a matter of developers becoming more familiar with the hardware and optimizing their games to better make use of the Wii U's hardware. As developers get more used to it, we'll be seeing a lot more better-looking games in future, as was the case with the PS360, which initially had games that look nowhere near as good as they do today.

But like you said, the real issue is the OS. The biggest mistake Nintendo have made with the Wii U is not the hardware, but that over-bloated OS unnecessarily draining the system RAM and, from what I hear, the CPU as well.

Having very minimal work offload for games is better than having offload in general. In other words Ninty could have put a better CPU in there and for low price as well. According to their one game makes profit statement, that just means the parts weren't all that expensive to begin with.

i think that persons making those decisions have no brain. What is going on with Nintendo i don't know and don't care because MS/Sony always deliver but how can N64 and earlier were so amazing and suddenly Nintendo became a laughing stock since 06 is kinda :roll:

silversix_

Ninty is a gaming company while sony and ms are giant corporations. They can afford(maybe not sony now) to put really powerful hardware in their consoles because they can use their other branches to fund the money for these consoles if they want.

[QUOTE="YearoftheSnake5"]

That depends. I feel that Nintendo's hardware is particularly well made in comparison to the competition, if you take horsepower out of the equation. I've never had to worry about their consoles/handhelds breaking down from normal use. When it comes down to specs, Nintendo tends to make hardware that THEY want to make games for. Right now, it's difficult to say whether the Wii U will be Wii all over again.

Even if 1.2ghz turns out to be true, while it is slow, isn't everything. In the PC world, slower, but more modern CPUs can outperform older models of higher clock speeds. We'll see in time.

One thing Nintendo IS foolish about is the Wii U operating system. Using half the system RAM for a bloated OS is ridiculous.

Jag85

It's all a matter of developers becoming more familiar with the hardware and optimizing their games to better make use of the Wii U's hardware. As developers get more used to it, we'll be seeing a lot more better-looking games in future, as was the case with the PS360, which initially had games that look nowhere near as good as they do today.

But like you said, the real issue is the OS. The biggest mistake Nintendo have made with the Wii U is not the hardware, but that over-bloated OS unnecessarily draining the system RAM and, from what I hear, the CPU as well.

One can rule out 6770 or 4850 for Wii U's GPU i.e. die size and render results.

HD 67X0 = 170 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

Wii U's GPU with eDRAM = ~156.21 mm^2. We need the die screenshot for the split between eDRAM and GPU.

HD 66X0 = 118 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

HD 56x0 = 104 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

HD 47x0 = 137 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

Refer to http://www.anandtech.com/show/6465/nintendo-wii-u-teardown

No, they're smart with it. The razor blade strategy is a dumb strategy with consoles because you have no guarantee your console will have good sales for software. Look at the Vita. Selling badly and software is selling badly. Look at SEGA during the late 90's. Just because you think selling hardware at a loss in order to make profit on software is a good idea it isn't because it has so many variables. Yes, I know Nintendo is currently selling the Wii U at a loss (and which Wii U system this is isn't currently known) but it sounds like it is a very tiny loss. Not like the stupid, completely backwards Sony/MS losses of $50 or more per unit. How about Sony/MS act like every other company in the world, sell their consoles at a decent profit and gamers stop whining about companies being "greedy" just because they have a business to run? This isn't a charity. If Sony made $20-$40 off every Playstation system sold then they'd have more money to fund projects, not lay off employees, etc. Of course this would mean consoles would need to be $299 or $399 at a profit and everyone in the internet gaming community would cry like babies if the next Xbox/PS4 have like 2-3GBs RAM and not crazy cutting edge hardware. To be fair, Microsoft did a pretty good job maintaining profits from Xbox hardware this gen but I still don't think anyone should launch a console at a large loss per unit.bonesawisready5

Ok, I don't think you read the OP.

But the strategy has been used for a while. The Vita isn't a good example. Every man and his dog could see it was stupid. The Vita suffers from the same business problems as the PSP.

They kind of have to do this. Most manufacturers need to push the hardware far enough so it's worth the upgrade and they have to have it powerful enough for longevity in the market. If the PS3/360 was weaker, they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did, people would have gotten tired of it earlier.

It's not a charity but they understand that it's more important to make money off the software at the beginning and not be greedy. See Nintendo could have done the same, but they choose to make money instead of giving us more powerful hardware. You have to accept that.But the problem is that they're offering people graphics they're already growing tired of. And the controller is more traditional, it's just a controller with a screen on it, I don't think it'll have a huge impact on games. So essentially they've released a current console when everyone else is ready to move on. You won't see Wii like sales with this, it's not different enough to do that.

Nintendo makes quality hardware, but what they put in their cases never seems to as powerful as we would like. They buy cheaply so they can profit quickly on the hardware. That works well for Nintendo, but not for gamers who are expect present day technology in their systems. The GameCube was a solid piece of hardware. You could drop it down the stairs and it would still work. Same with the NES and SNES. Those consoles were build to last. All of mine still work. Nintendo wants to innovate, but they need to use current or future technology in their systems.blackace

Not quite what the thread was about, but I agree.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Picking NVIDIA RSX hardware wasn't so good for PS3.MSXBOX4EVER

lol that's also true. But they seem to be good in many areas of hardware. I think MSs goal was just to have a very unified design, RAM, GPU erm... XBL. :P

sony made so many mistakes this gen, and i agree with ronvalencia that the rsx and its lack of unified shader architecture totally stuffed up the ps3.

also for some dumb reason sony only ever offered a premium sku right off the bat. ms offered a budget conscious sku (no hdmi, no optical), then down the track added these features. ps3 has all these expensive features from launch.

wii-u ... im a little disappointed that it has no optical port. but dolby digital 5.1 incurs licensing costs - that's why nintendo did it. but, in my opinion, what they should have done is had possibly a third sku!

basic set, deluxe set, and why not the third option of deluxe+ set (including blu ray playback, optical out port)

or, had a blu ray player as a software package people pay for on the eShop. funny that i'm making these suggestions when i don't need optical nor blu ray playback lol.

Nintendo should stop being so tight with licences. We want movie playback, better sound and all that. The Wii would have been a nice DVD player. The Wii U would have had an extra selling point with Blu Ray playback. I was thinking the same thing about DVD playback for the Wii, they could have made it a downloadable channel for cost. I don't need it, but it might have been nice.

People may say you don't need these features on a Nintendo console, I quite like Lovefilm on the Wii. It has good picture and sound. I'll probably get more mileage out of that than gaming on the system.

This topic does not talk about business it talks about hardware.

I do agree with their business stance. They got it mapped out a bit better than the others which is funny considering their sometimes genius sometimes complete imbecile patterns of thought.

Their hardware definitely DOES have mistakes. There is no other way around it. Many of those mistakes did harm them in the long run, but luckily their business of cheap hardware with a cheap price tends to always do a great job in the end for any product.

AznbkdX

No doubt their business was good, but these small things harmed their 3rd party games a little.

you really CAN'T BLAME nintendo for being conservative, if any one is to blame it is the supporters of the ps1 ps2 etc when nintendo actually had powerful systems in the past no body wanted them no body wanted anything to do with gamecube and we all know how much re4 had to be scalled back for ps2 , there is proof enough that nintendo is not foolish its the consumer who didnt wanna buy nintendo consoles when they were powerful and cheap! now we all pay the price as nintendo fans , and what not,

we pay the price because the consumer didnt want power ,

mariokart64fan

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

i think that persons making those decisions have no brain. What is going on with Nintendo i don't know and don't care because MS/Sony always deliver but how can N64 and earlier were so amazing and suddenly Nintendo became a laughing stock since 06 is kinda :roll:

super600

Ninty is a gaming company while sony and ms are giant corporations. They can afford(maybe not sony now) to put really powerful hardware in their consoles because they can use their other branches to fund the money for these consoles if they want.

The Xbox's Pentium III CPU architecture was a bottleneck, limiting the GPU's full potential. The Xbox was the bulkiest and most expensive console that gen, but failed to outperform the much cheaper GameCube. In fact, the GameCube even outperformed the Xbox when it came to practical polygon counts (case in point: Rogue Leader).Jag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"]More importantly, the Wii U's Radeon HD (whether based on the 4870 or 6770) GPGPU is a lot more powerful than the PS360 GPU's, and that's what really matters when it comes to graphical performance in video games. And while the CPU may not be anymore powerful than that of the 360, the Wii U is capable of offloading work from the CPU to the GPGPU.

It's all a matter of developers becoming more familiar with the hardware and optimizing their games to better make use of the Wii U's hardware. As developers get more used to it, we'll be seeing a lot more better-looking games in future, as was the case with the PS360, which initially had games that look nowhere near as good as they do today.

But like you said, the real issue is the OS. The biggest mistake Nintendo have made with the Wii U is not the hardware, but that over-bloated OS unnecessarily draining the system RAM and, from what I hear, the CPU as well.

ronvalencia

One can rule out 6770 or 4850 for Wii U's GPU i.e. die size and render results.

HD 67X0 = 170 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

Wii U's GPU with eDRAM = ~156.21 mm^2. We need the die screenshot for the split between eDRAM and GPU.

HD 66X0 = 118 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

HD 56x0 = 104 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

HD 47x0 = 137 mm^2 at 40nm process tech.

Refer to http://www.anandtech.com/show/6465/nintendo-wii-u-teardown

They used to have good hardware, ms took graphics king but still decent. Problem was no games that people wanted to drive sales.. N64 had goldeneye so they tried but was short lived. PS1 had gran truismo and final fantasy that drove its sales. Ps2 had gta and metal gear solid. Xbox had halo,ninja gaiden,splinter cell. So I do blame nintendo for their choices that led to failure in the adult market..p4s2p0

[QUOTE="Jag85"] The Xbox's Pentium III CPU architecture was a bottleneck, limiting the GPU's full potential. The Xbox was the bulkiest and most expensive console that gen, but failed to outperform the much cheaper GameCube. In fact, the GameCube even outperformed the Xbox when it came to practical polygon counts (case in point: Rogue Leader).p4s2p0

The GameCube's main flaw was, like you said, the more difficult to use GPU shaders, compared to the Xbox. But you have to keep in mind that the GC was much cheaper than the Xbox. The fact that, at only a fraction of the price, its graphical performance actually matched and/or exceeded the Xbox was far beyond what most gamers were expecting from such a cheap console at the time. And the reason for that is because the GC's PowerPC architecture was just a lot more efficient than the Xbox's Pentium III architecture. Nintendo even managed to make a profit on every GC, whereas Microsoft were making a loss on every Xbox. As for the mini-discs the GC used, the reason Nintendo used them was so that games loaded a lot faster than the slower DVD drives for the PS2 and Xbox. In other words, they simply sacrificed some storage space for the sake of more efficient hardware performance.

They are horrible at making hardware (see the 3DS, Wii U) and they are even worst at making software engines (see N64, Game Cube, and Wii/3/DS games). The PSX games ran way better because they were digital which is why FF7 was moved to the PSX. You could stream media off of a disc which made for better sound and animation unlike the outdated cartridges. BlueVigor

I would saw they were fine up until the WiiU. The WiiU is just like, why wouldn't you handily beat the competition? I wouldn't be that expensive to do. I honestly hope the WiiU comes out better than the Wii because looking at it now it seems like it won't even get all the awesome exclusive attention the Wii got.

[QUOTE="p4s2p0"][QUOTE="Jag85"] The Xbox's Pentium III CPU architecture was a bottleneck, limiting the GPU's full potential. The Xbox was the bulkiest and most expensive console that gen, but failed to outperform the much cheaper GameCube. In fact, the GameCube even outperformed the Xbox when it came to practical polygon counts (case in point: Rogue Leader).Jag85

The GameCube's main flaw was, like you said, the more difficult to use GPU shaders, compared to the Xbox. But you have to keep in mind that the GC was much cheaper than the Xbox. The fact that, at only a fraction of the price, its graphical performance actually matched and/or exceeded the Xbox was far beyond what most gamers were expecting from such a cheap console at the time. And the reason for that is because the GC's PowerPC architecture was just a lot more efficient than the Xbox's Pentium III architecture. Nintendo even managed to make a profit on every GC, whereas Microsoft were making a loss on every Xbox. As for the mini-discs the GC used, the reason Nintendo used them was so that games loaded a lot faster than the slower DVD drives for the PS2 and Xbox. In other words, they simply sacrificed some storage space for the sake of more efficient hardware performance.

It's greed more than foolishness

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="p4s2p0"] Multiplats looked better on xbox, and I thought the best looking ones were halo,ninja gaiden,splinter cell. I think it was the disc cube used having less space and programing that caused more limitations than xbox did with the cpu. Example "factor 5 said that the cube could do all the same effects as the xbox but it wasn't as Developer friendly due to having to program all the shaders"Lordofinternet

The GameCube's main flaw was, like you said, the more difficult to use GPU shaders, compared to the Xbox. But you have to keep in mind that the GC was much cheaper than the Xbox. The fact that, at only a fraction of the price, its graphical performance actually matched and/or exceeded the Xbox was far beyond what most gamers were expecting from such a cheap console at the time. And the reason for that is because the GC's PowerPC architecture was just a lot more efficient than the Xbox's Pentium III architecture. Nintendo even managed to make a profit on every GC, whereas Microsoft were making a loss on every Xbox. As for the mini-discs the GC used, the reason Nintendo used them was so that games loaded a lot faster than the slower DVD drives for the PS2 and Xbox. In other words, they simply sacrificed some storage space for the sake of more efficient hardware performance.